Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
37
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
37 results for “Science Funding”
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) funding statistics 2009-2017
<p>Compilation of funding statistics from FWF's annual reports as longitudinal data from 2009-2017.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) funding statistics 2009-2018
<p>Compilation of funding statistics from FWF's annual reports as longitudinal data from 2009-2018</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2020
<p><strong>I. Executive summary</strong></p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications. All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within four months of completing their projects.</p> <p>In 2020, a total of 483 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 32 of which could not report any publications so far. The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements for peer-reviewed publications on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2020.</p> <p>2020 shows a significant decline in the number of publications compared to 2019. This decline can be explained by the fact that 15% fewer final project reports were received as a result of weaker funding years in the mid-2010s as well as an increased shift of final report submissions from 2020 to later points in time (‘corona effect’). Especially in the programmes with the highest number of publications (Doctoral Programmes, Special Research Programmes) as well as in programmes with many projects (Stand-Alone Projects, International Projects), there were fewer final project reports submitted, which has a massive impact on the total number of publications. It must be taken into account that the method (recording the number of publications via final project reports) is a look into the past, as the final project reports show publications that were produced in previous years during the project term. The publication activity in relation to the year of publication itself is relatively constant according to databases such as Dimensions. Due to the automation of the monitoring processes and the introduction of Plan S of cOAlition S, the category of ‘Other open access’ (self-archiving in a non-maintained repository, homepage, or archiving of preprints), which was previously determined manually, is no longer taken into account, and thus the open access share of peer-reviewed publications has decreased compared to previous years.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <p>-A total of 6,196 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2020.</p> <p>-Of those publications, 4,809 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</p> <p>-Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the analysis shows that 84% of the peer-reviewed publications listed in the final project reports submitted in 2020 were openly accessible (2015: 83%, 2016: 92%, 2017: 90%, 2018: 92%, 2019: 89%).</p> <p>-The most frequently chosen option was hybrid open access (40%). The share of old open access was 21%, the share of green open access 23%, and no open access 16%.</p> <p>-The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted were journal articles (89%), 88% of which were openly accessible.</p> <p>-The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy could be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes, and monographs (38%).</p> <p>-The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2020 included 362 publications that were mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions did not ultimately affect the relative share of open access publications (83%).</p> <p><strong>II. Bias</strong></p> <p>Most of the publications were submitted to the FWF via a research documentation system (provided by ©Researchfish), in which FWF-funded researchers are able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis. The last check of the open access status was performed in March 2020. In some cases, the embargo period may have already expired, and publications labelled ‘no open access’ in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</p> <p>Whenever the status ‘peer-reviewed’ could not be clearly identified according to the FWF’s guidelines, the publications were classified as non-peer reviewed.</p> <p>Openly available non-peer reviewed publications were entered as 'openly available’.</p> <p> </p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2020
<p>The following data set provides information on the publication costs spent by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via the programmes Peer-reviewed Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</a>) and Stand-Alone Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a>) in 2020.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2022
<p>The following dataset provides information on the publication costs spent by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via the programmes Peer-reviewed Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</a>) and Stand-Alone Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a>) in 2022.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2013 - 2018
<p>The data set consists of the FWF publication cost data sets of the years 2013 to 2018 which are publicly available on Zenodo: <a href="https://zenodo.org/communities/fwf/?page=1&size=20">https://zenodo.org/communities/fwf/?page=1&size=20</a></p> <p>The data set includes payments for publications funded by the FWF programmes:</p> <p>Peer-reviewed Publications: <a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</a></p> <p>and Stand-Alone Publications: <a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a></p> <p> </p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) funding statistics 2009-2016
<p>Compilation of funding statistics from FWF's annual reports as longitudinal data from 2009-2016.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) publication costs in 2013 for journal articles_Exercise-workshop open science
<p>FWF journal publication costs 2013 used for the open science workshop, 27.09.2017</p> <p><strong>Austrian Science Fund (FWF) publication costs in 2013 for journal articles</strong><strong> </strong></p> <p> </p> <p>This dataset is licensed under a CC-0 license. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Explanation of data - Overview</strong><strong> </strong></p> <p> </p> <p>The dataset includes payments for articles of authors funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via the program 'Peer Reviewed Publications', see: http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/projects/peer-reviewed_publications.html </p> <p>The dataset only includes information when costs were applied via the program Peer Reviewed Publications. If an author has covered the costs by the global budget of his/her research project, by other resources or the publisher provides a Gold OA service free of charge, this information is not included in this dataset. </p> <p> </p> <p>Payments are either reimbursed to the authors or directly paid to the publishers by the FWF.</p> <p> </p> <p>The data slightly differs from FWF's annual report 2013 because this dataset does not include payments for Proceedings, Open Access Books, repayments by publishers in the case of double payments or submission fees for articles which were not published. </p> <p><strong>The dataset contains the following elements</strong><strong> </strong> </p> <p><strong>DOI/PMID</strong></p> <p>Usually the DOI-number (Digital Object Identifier) of an article is listed, and the PMID (PubMed ID) where DOI is not available. In very few cases, no permanent identifier exists. </p> <p><strong>COST TYPE </strong></p> <p>(1) Gold Open Access and (2) Hybrid Open Access are defined by FWF's Open Access Policy, see: http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/oai/index.html</p> <p>(3) "Other publication costs" are defined as additional costs to the subscription price charged by subscription journals (i.e. submission fees, colour charges, page charges, figure charges, table charges, supplemental charges.) </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>COST </strong></p> <p>Some articles are listed twice because they are charged for Hybrid Open Access as well as for Other publication costs. These articles are marked in <strong>red</strong> in the field "Article Title." </p> <p> </p> <p>All costs have been converted into EURO (€) and include VAT where applicable. </p> <p> </p> <p>Different prices for the same journal are caused either by exchange rate fluctuation or by cost sharing among authors. When these differences are small, it can be assumed that this reflects exchange rate fluctuations. Where they are significant, then it should be assumed that other funders have contributed to the cost of that APC (Article Processing Charge), and the figure cited is the FWF contribution to that APC. </p> <p><strong>ARTICLE TITLE </strong></p> <p>This is the title of the article as stated on the journal website. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>JOURNAL TITLE </strong></p> <p>Most journal title information were collected from Scopus but some were entered manually. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>PUBLISHER </strong></p> <p>Sources for publisher names are: (a) Romeo/Sherpa-database or (b) the journal websites. </p> <p><strong>YEAR OF PUBLICATION </strong></p> <p>It shows the year of publication of an article reimbursed/paid in 2013 by the FWF.</p> <p> </p> <p>In some cases, there is a time lag of a year and more between the year of publication and the payment in 2013. That is mostly explained by administrative delays. However, it was monitored by the FWF that these articles were made Open Access by the publishers at the date of online publication. In very few cases, some days of delay were tolerated. For the cases in questions, see "Notes".</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>OPEN ACCESS </strong></p> <p>"OA" is used when APCs were charged either for an article in an Open Access journal or for Hybrid Open Access in a subscription journal.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>LICENSE</strong></p> <p>Status of licenses are tracked according to Open Article Gauge,</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>NOTES</strong></p> <p>Additional information, if necessary.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2023
<p>I. Executive summary</p> <p> </p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications. All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within four months of completing their projects.</p> <p>In 2023, a total of 560 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 36 of which could not report any publications so far. The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements for peer-reviewed publications on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2023.</p> <p> </p> <p>Main findings:</p> <p> </p> <p>-A total of 6.389 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2023.</p> <p>-Of those publications, 5.296 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</p> <p>-Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the analysis shows that 84% of the peer-reviewed publications listed in the final project reports submitted in 2023 were openly accessible (2017: 90%, 2018: 92%, 2019: 89%, 2020: 84%, 2021: 82%, 2022: 85%).</p> <p>-The most frequently chosen option was hybrid open access (37%). The share of gold open access was 31%, the share of green open access 17%, and no open access 16%.</p> <p>-The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted were journal articles (85%), 91% of which were openly accessible.</p> <p>-The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy could be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes, and monographs (34%).</p> <p>-The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2023 included 265 publications that were mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions did not affect the relative share of open access publications (84%).</p> <p> </p> <p>II. Bias</p> <p> </p> <p>Most of the publications were submitted to the FWF via a research documentation system (provided by ©Researchfish), in which FWF-funded researchers are able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis. The last check of the open access status was performed in March 2024. In some cases, the embargo period may have already expired, and publications labelled ‘closed’ in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through green open access.</p> <p> </p> <p>Whenever the status ‘peer-reviewed’ could not be clearly identified according to the FWF’s guidelines, the publications were classified as non-peer reviewed.</p> <p>Openly available non-peer reviewed publications were entered as 'openly available’.</p>
The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science
<p>Every year the National Institutes of Health allocates $10.7 billion (one-third of its funds) for clinical science research while the pharmaceutical companies spend $52.9 billion (90% of its annual budget). However, we know little about funder collaborations and the impact of collaboratively funded projects. As an initial effort towards this, we examine the cofunding network, where a funder represents a node and an edge signifies collaboration. Our core data include all papers that cite and receive citations by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, a prominent clinical review journal. We find that 65% of clinical papers have multiple funders and discover communities of funders that are formed by national boundaries and funding objectives. To quantify success in funding, we use a g-index metric that indicates efficiency of funders in supporting clinically relevant research. After controlling for authorship, we find that funders generally achieve higher success when collaborating than when solofunding. We also find that as a funder, seeking multiple, direct connections with various disconnected funders may be more beneficial than being part of a densely interconnected network of co-funders. The results of this paper indicate that collaborations can potentially accelerate innovation, not only among authors but also funders.</p>
Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation
<p>Concerns about systemic racism at academic and research institutions have increased over the past decade. Here, we investigate data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a major funder of research in the United States, and find evidence for pervasive racial disparities. In particular, white principal investigators (PIs) are consistently funded at higher rates than most non-white PIs. Funding rates for white PIs have also been increasing relative to annual overall rates with time. Moreover, disparities occur across all disciplinary directorates within the NSF and are greater for research proposals. The distributions of average external review scores also exhibit systematic offsets based on PI race. Similar patterns have been described in other research funding bodies, suggesting that racial disparities are widespread. The prevalence and persistence of these racial disparities in funding have cascading impacts that perpetuate a cumulative advantage to white PIs across all of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.</p>
Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2019
<p>The following data set provides information on the publication costs spent by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via the programmes Peer-reviewed Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</a>) and Stand-Alone Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a>) in 2019.</p>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Open Access Compliance Monitoring 2018
<p><strong>I. Executive summary</strong></p> <p>The Austrian Science Fund (FWF), which is Austria's main funding organisation for basic research, encourages and helps all project leaders and project staff members to make their peer-reviewed research results freely available on the Internet. Since 1 January 2016, open access has been mandatory for all peer-reviewed publications listed in final reports on FWF-funded projects. Any exceptions must be clearly indicated and justified. For projects that started after 1 January 2015, open access has been compulsory for all peer-reviewed publications.</p> <p>All principal investigators in FWF-funded projects are obliged to submit a final report within three months of completing their projects. In 2018 all in all 549 final reports were submitted to the FWF, 37 out of them couldn't report publications by now.</p> <p>The publications and other data mentioned in those reports are archived and analysed by the FWF. This report examines the state of compliance with open access requirements on the basis of final project reports submitted in the year 2018.</p> <p>Main findings:</p> <ul> <li>A total of 10.354 publications were listed in the final project reports submitted in 2018.</li> <li>Of those publications, 7.702 were conclusively identified as peer-reviewed.</li> <li>Regarding compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy, the report shows that 92% of the peer-reviewed publications that arose from submitted final reports of FWF projects in 2018 are openly accessible (2015: 83%, 2016: 92%, 2017: 90%).</li> <li>The most frequently chosen option is <em>hybrid open access </em>(39%)<em>. </em>Since last year's report, the use of<em> </em><em>hybrid open access </em>has declined by 2% and <em>g</em><em>old open access </em>has increased by 4%. The share of <em>green open access </em>and <em>other open access </em>remained contant (20% and 16%).</li> <li>The majority of peer-reviewed publications submitted are journal articles (90%), 93% of which are openly accessible.</li> <li>The lowest rate of compliance with the FWF's Open Access Policy can be found in editions, contributions to edited volumes and monographs (65%).</li> <li>Although open access is not compulsory, 41% of non peer-reviewed publications are freely available through the internet.</li> <li>The absolute number of publications listed in final reports in 2018 includes 886 publications that are mentioned several times in different projects; however, those repetitions do not ultimately affect the relative share of open access publications (92%).</li> </ul> <p><strong>II. Bias</strong></p> <p>All publications were entered in the FWF’s database manually and with the utmost care when the final project reports were received. Nevertheless, it is not possible to rule out minor errors entirely. Moreover, some systematic problems need to be solved in the future; the FWF is currently preparing to implement a research information system in which FWF-funded researchers will be able to enter and update their research data on an ongoing basis.</p> <ul> <li>Due to the amount of data involved, it was not possible to check the current open access status of all publications twice. The last check was performed in January 2019.</li> <li>In some cases, the embargo period may have expired after submission, and publications labelled o<em>ther open access</em> in the FWF’s database may now be accessible through <em>green open access.</em></li> <li>Whenever the status "peer-reviewed" could not be clearly identified according to FWF guidelines, the publications were classified as non peer-reviewed.</li> <li>Openly available non peer-reviewed publications were entered as <em>other open access</em>.</li> </ul>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Publication Cost Data 2018
<p>The following data set provides information on the publication costs spent by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via the programmes Peer-reviewed Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/</a>) and Stand-Alone Publications (<a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/stand-alone-publications/</a>) in 2018.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Figure 1: Open Science needs standards, training and funding
<p>Figure for Publication</p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.